Register here

Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development  (Read 75683 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« on: August 09, 2010, 09:17:38 pm »
Two artist's impressions of the Royal Navy's proposed future aircraft carrier (CVF) from 1999.  These both show examples designed to operate STOVL aircraft.

Source: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 09:24:08 pm »
Artist's impression of STOVL design released in 1999.

Description from Navy Matters:
Quote
The relatively large island superstructure houses the four WR21 gas turbine prime movers.  This configuration allows an exceptionally large single hanger able to accommodate all of the standard (40 aircraft) airgroup.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:35:03 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2010, 09:31:03 pm »
Artist's impressions of BAE Systems STOVL CVF concept from 1999.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:35:24 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2010, 09:42:22 pm »
Artist's impression of nuclear-powered CVF with CTOL run on the port side and STOVL run on the starboard side.

Source: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2010, 09:58:40 pm »
Artist's impression of a Thomson-CSF STOBAR carrier concept circa 1998.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2010, 10:02:52 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems STOVL concept circa 2000.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2010, 10:06:35 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems CTOL concept circa 2002.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2010, 10:35:48 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems concept circa 2003.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:38:55 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2010, 12:22:48 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems CTOL concept 2001.

Artist's impression of CTOL CVF concept, date unknown.

Sources:
http://picasaweb.google.com/dimitar.gruev/NAVY#5227709327094533714
http://picasaweb.google.com/dimitar.gruev/NAVY#5229253959719851650
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 12:31:19 pm by Triton »

Online uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2010, 05:38:52 am »
This programme must rank as the biggest waste of public money in the Defence field.

The carrier debate was fought and lost comprehensively in the 60s:

The RN does not have the manpower to operate carriers in any useful quantity

The ships that the UK can afford to build and operate are too limited in capability
to justify their huge cost

The nuclear hunter killer submarines became the RN's capital ships and are a capability
that matches that of even the USN.  In comparison British carriers are too small and
too specialised.   (Yes, I know the b~~~~y Falklands, but if we lose them this time
round and the Argies capture Mount Pleasant airbase it would take the USN to get
the islands back!)

But.... if the Labour Government had to have a job creation programme they could at
least have built a carrier capable of operating Rafales or F18s.  What plonker thought it good value to
built huge ships only able to operate a plane that at the time had not even flown (1998)?

With any luck the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns and British Aerospace will be told, unless you can put catapults on these suckers within the budget, guess what you get to keep them and try and sell them to India, Brazil or whoever and yes, British Aerospace and not the British taxpaper will pick up the bill.   

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2010, 11:08:44 am »
Sometime after 2001 they went to a two-island design.  I'm not sure if the current design includes two islands.  I have a hard time believing that two islands are not going to create more turbulence over the deck than one.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2010, 11:45:32 am »
This programme must rank as the biggest waste of public money in the Defence field.

The carrier debate was fought and lost comprehensively in the 60s:

The RN does not have the manpower to operate carriers in any useful quantity

The ships that the UK can afford to build and operate are too limited in capability
to justify their huge cost

The nuclear hunter killer submarines became the RN's capital ships and are a capability
that matches that of even the USN.  In comparison British carriers are too small and
too specialised.   (Yes, I know the b~~~~y Falklands, but if we lose them this time
round and the Argies capture Mount Pleasant airbase it would take the USN to get
the islands back!)

But.... if the Labour Government had to have a job creation programme they could at
least have built a carrier capable of operating Rafales or F18s.  What plonker thought it good value to
built huge ships only able to operate a plane that at the time had not even flown (1998)?

With any luck the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns and British Aerospace will be told, unless you can put catapults on these suckers within the budget, guess what you get to keep them and try and sell them to India, Brazil or whoever and yes, British Aerospace and not the British taxpaper will pick up the bill.    

How useful is the Queen Elizabeth-class in a situation similar to the mid-1990s Balkans peacekeeping mission by NATO? Did they have future international peacekeeping missions in mind when they drew up plans for the CVF?

« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 06:30:10 pm by Triton »

Online uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2010, 02:13:17 am »
Triton

You are correct that the desire to take part in "wars of liberal interventionism"
as opposed to "defensive operations of national survival" is the prime argument
in favour of carriers (much as East of Suez was until 1967).

Leaving aside the political argument whether we as a country can afford such interventions,
we can provide other contributions to an international coalition which we are better at and
are less expensive. 

However, even if one wants aircraft carriers, why oh why could not we have grasped the
nettle and ordered two proper flat tops (a bit like the US CVV programme of the 70s) that
could operate a balanced airgroup of F18s/Rafales, E3 Hawkeyes etc. Even these ships could have also
been double roled as helicopter carriers (the US used the Nimitz for its CH53s for the Raid on Iran).

No. sadly these ships are Gordon Brown's follies. Elaborate work creation programmes. They were first mooted in 1998! Here we are 12 years later with no ships (even the first Nimitz class did not take much longer than this and the USS Enterprise certainly didnt).  British Aerospace must take much of the blame (as usual-see Nimrods, Astutes, Eurofighter-in fact pretty much every project they touch).
Again, work creation programmes are a political issue, but if its a choice between schools and hospitals or mythical weapons systems....

Surprisingly in the same timescale Italy (often held up as a corrupt and inefficient country) has quietly built a new class of light carrier, which it can use with its existing Harriers until Joint Strike Fighter (though again it will probably end up with whatever Harrier derivative the US Marines have to settle for when JSF STOVL folds).

In comparison poor old CVA 01 was a model of efficiency!

UK 75

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 857
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2010, 05:11:36 am »
No the blame lies firmly with the government and especialy the Treasurey. This project has been delayed time and again, and everytime the RN came back with the solution No.11 asked the same questions it had first time around. How many studies have essentialy been a waste of time reproducing the same conclusions as the first.

These ships ought to have been built by now.

As for the idea of 'no carriers' thats one thats proved a falsehood as the USSRs efforts show.

Online uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1231
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 03:17:57 am »
Zen

Your mention of the Russian carrier efforts helped clarify something in my mind

Both Russia and France have found it very difficult to deploy carriers.  The De Gaulle
very much illustrates the problem of trying to get a full catapult carrier into a demi litre
pot.  Russia's Kuznetzov is a hybrid, not having catapults but able to operate the significant
SU 27 fighter.  However, this ship has many limitations and would be very expensive if costed
in Western terms.  China and India are trying to commission similar ships, but also facing
design versus cost versus capability issues.

This leaves what one might call the Harrier Carrier/Sea Control Ship option.  Such ships do not
come cheap and do not provide a very great capability.  More than one such ship in service at
any time was normally beyond even the RN.  Italy will alternate Garibaldi and Cavour.

In an ideal world the UK should be able to build, equip and operate at least two Eagle size conventional carriers with a reasonable small airgroup (F18s, AEW, support helo). However,
trying to get one seems to elude us.

UK 75